0. The description "an array is a list of its items" was not in the 
Dictionary IIRC; when I wrote JfC I thought I was making up the 
terminology (but I see it's in LJ too, so I don't claim credit).  But 
note that you have to say 'non-atomic array' in that description if you 
insist on using 'array' to mean 'noun'.

1. "An item, after all, is an array one dimension fewer than the 
argument"... again, you have to make an exception to make the statement 
true - or change the terminology.

2. As I defined it for my purposes, 'list' always means a rank-1 array, 
and 'list of x' might have a higher rank.

3. We should be careful to call rank-2 arrays 'tables', and reserve 
'matrix' for those tables that follow the rules of matrix operations.

4. I like 'cube' (and 'n-cube', perhaps, for ranks higher than 3?).

5. I wasn't shouting at you, Roger!  I wasn't making a religious or 
political statement either, but I was terrified (wrongly, thank 
goodness) that it might be taken that way.  I just thought that it was 
an apt analogy, pointing out the unconvincing nature of a simple appeal 
to authority.

Henry Rich

On 10/21/2011 6:31 AM, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Alan Stebbens<[email protected]>  wrote:
>> Given those discussions, even though it seems counter-intuitive, I stand 
>> corrected.
>>
>> A scalar (aka element)           is a zero-rank array.
>> A vector (aka list)              is a one-rank array.
>> A matrix (aka table aka "array") is a two-rank array.
>
> I think you should be careful here.
>
> The google search:
>
>      site:jsoftware.com "list of items"
>
> finds me 47 pages.  In other words, in some contexts, a list is an
> n-dimensional array (an item, after all, is an array one dimension
> fewer than the argument).
>
>> J is hard enough as it is, but "array" having the everyday meaning
>> alongside the APL/J meaning (Array) is really quite confusing to explain.
>
> Everyday meanings are inherently ambiguous.  This means that everyone
> you are trying to explain to is used to dealing with ambiguity.  A
> trap we need to avoid failing into is the belief that the underlying
> words are not meant to be ambiguous.  If we attempt that, we confuse
> people.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to